IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1481 OF 2024 (SCST)

BETWEEN:

1. SMT NINGAMMA W/O. LATE KALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 2. SRI. SIDDARAJU S/O. LATE KALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 3. SRI. RAMESH S/O. LATE KALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, Digitally 4. SRI. SHIVANNA signed by S/O. LATE KALAIAH, NIRMALA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, DEVI Location:

5. SRI. NAGARAJU HIGH COURT OF S/O. LATE KALAIAH, KARNATAKA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 6. SRI. KUMARA S/O. LATE KALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O. MYDANAHALLI VILLAGE, ILAWALA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT.

…APPELLANTS (BY MS. ASHWINI O, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSORE SUB-DIVISION, MYSORE.

3. THE TAHSILDAR MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE.

4. SRI. N. BALAKRISHNA @ BALAKRISHNA MASTI S/O. NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O. NO. 223, 3RD MAIN ROAD, JAYALAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU.

5. SMT. N. NAGARATHNA W/O. S. BOJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, NO. 6, BLOCK NO. 16, B.E.M.L. LAYOUT, 2ND STAGE, SARASWATHIPURAM, MYSORE.

6. SRI. KEMPAIAH S/O. LATE KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 7. SRI. CHIKKAHAIDAIAH S/O. LATE KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 8. SRI. MARIYAIAH S/O. LATE KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 9. SRI. LAKSHMAIAH S/O. LATE KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, RESPONDENTS No.6 TO 9 ARE R/O. MYDANAHALLI VILLAGE, ILAWALA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT.

10. SRI. M. L. KANTHARAJE URS S/O. M. S. LAKSHMIKANTHARAJE URS, R/O. NO. CH-47, DIWANS ROAD, LAKSHMIPURAM, MYSURU.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.S. HARISH, GA FOR R1 TO R3)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND JUDGEMENT OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.8407/2020 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT DATED

12/07/2021 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The present appeal is being filed after an inordinate delay of 915 days. The application seeking condonation of delay does not set out particulars which would explain the said inordinate delay. The appellants have merely stated that they had approached the High Court's Legal Services Committee and the Advocate appointed, took considerable time to study and analyze the law and the case on the subject matter. Thereafter, the counsel provided a legal opinion that it was a fit case to be filed before the High Court. Thereafter, the appellants took time to travel from their hometown to meet and brief the advocate assigned to them.

2. As noted above, the affidavit is completely silent as to when the appellants had approached the Legal Services Committee; on what date the advocate was assigned to examine their case; when did she/they render a legal opinion and when did they travel from their hometown to arrange for the advocate to represent them.

3. In the present case, the appellants seek resumption of land measuring 5.0 acre which is granted to the father-in-law of appellant No.1 and grandfather of appellant Nos.2 to 6 on 07.03.1940. The original grantee had expired and thereafter his widow sold the land to the extent of 2 acres and 32 guntas in favour of the ancestors of respondent No.5 to 8 vide registered Sale Deed which was executed on 25.01.1960. Thereafter, 25 years later i.e. on 30.08.1985, she along with her son sold further land measuring 2 acres and 26 guntas by a registered Sale Deed. More than 26 years have elapsed. The grandchildren of the original grantee filed an application for annulling the Sale Deed that were executed on 25.01.1960 and 30.08.1985. Their application was rejected on 04.08.2014. They filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner [Case No. PTCL-08/2014-15] which was rejected. Thereafter, the appellants filed a wr